Republicans branching out to old Dem stronghold.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Republicans in bed with the gay community? GWB will now do anything INCLUDING sucking a dick to stay in power. It's official.

Hypocritical assholes.

What's hypocritical is you finding fault in other people choosing a different political affiliation than you.

And it's also sad that everyone here is treating the LCRs like some talking dog act. This "Did you hear about the gay Republicans?" is pretty silly. Did you actually think homosexuals lacked the intellect and free will to choose their political beliefs for themselves? Get over it!

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Perhaps you think we may beat our children as much as we like so long as we do it in the privacy of our own homes. Surely this fictional right to privacy would extend to that as well, right?

Well, our laws knows an "Assessment of Basic Rights", so such never could happen.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Perhaps you think we may beat our children as much as we like so long as we do it in the privacy of our own homes. Surely this fictional right to privacy would extend to that as well, right?

Well, our laws knows an "Assessment of Basic Rights", so such never could happen.

Walter - it doesn't matter what the law is, if the government is not allowed to act on anything that takes place in the home. (This is the flawed core of Setanta's recent claim, in case you missed it.)

0 Replies

scrat

The analogy you use immediately above which Walter has quoted is a really silly one, and for obvious reasons - consent, age. Try a little harder for goodness sakes.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Setanta - Your point is moot unless the TX law gave government the right to actually SPY (video, record, ...) in that bedroom. What was the unreasonable search? What personal effects or papers were not secure? Once again, you wish to stretch the language to mean something it does not. Perhaps you think we may beat our children as much as we like so long as we do it in the privacy of our own homes. Surely this fictional right to privacy would extend to that as well, right?

The TX law is stupid, the USSC ruling on it is even worse (and that's regardless of which way they ruled).

I note that in your disingenuous response here, you ignore the Fourteenth amendment altogether. I was stretching nothing, i was referring to the majority opinion of the Court in this matter--you should take it up with them, if you think they do not correctly interpret.

0 Replies

THUD

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Setanta - Your point is moot unless the TX law gave government the right to actually SPY (video, record, ...) in that bedroom. What was the unreasonable search? What personal effects or papers were not secure? Once again, you wish to stretch the language to mean something it does not. Perhaps you think we may beat our children as much as we like so long as we do it in the privacy of our own homes. Surely this fictional right to privacy would extend to that as well, right?

The TX law is stupid, the USSC ruling on it is even worse (and that's regardless of which way they ruled).

I note that in your disingenuous response here, you ignore the Fourteenth amendment altogether. I was stretching nothing, i was referring to the majority opinion of the Court in this matter--you should take it up with them, if you think they do not correctly interpret.

"Disingenuous?" So if I disagree with you I must not mean it? Get over yourself.

Your off-hand mention of the 14th amendment is--not surprisingly--completely devoid of any explanation as to HOW I am "ignoring" it. I assure you I am not. Neither am I--as you would do--stretching it to mean something it does not.

In this context, the 14th instructs us that no state may take away that which the Constitution guarantees us. My point--of which you feign ignorance--is that the Constitution provides no "right" to sodomy, nor does a state law against sodomy automatically breach 4th amendment guarantees any more than does a state law against beating your children or your wife. These latter laws also invade the sanctity of the home, but I don't hear anyone claiming the laws are vestiges of the 18th century or unconstitutional invasions of privacy.

Your problem, Setanta, is that you can't separate what you want from what is true.

And I absolutely LOVE how much respect liberals have for the decisions of the Supreme Court--this notion that "the supremes have ruled it so, therefor it is beyond debate", does not seem to extend to Bush V. Gore.

0 Replies

MSNBC wrote:

The MSNBC article can be found here[/color].

If Scart wishes to argue: "Your point is moot unless the TX law gave government the right to actually SPY (video, record, ...) in that bedroom. What was the unreasonable search? What personal effects or papers were not secure? Once again, you wish to stretch the language to mean something it does not. Perhaps you think we may beat our children as much as we like so long as we do it in the privacy of our own homes. Surely this fictional right to privacy would extend to that as well, right?

"The TX law is stupid, the USSC ruling on it is even worse (and that's regardless of which way they ruled)."

--then Scrat must argue the point with Justice Kennedy; I've already noted that Scart has ignored the Fourteenth Amendment, and i put the quotation of Section 1 of that amendment in my original text, because Justice O'Connor, while concurring in the majority opinion in general, objected that the basis for overturning the Texas statute should properly be the "equal protection" clause of that amendment. I will here take the opportunity to point out that when i post something such as this, i am not stating my opinion of on what the Court's majority opinion is or ought to be based, but rather, am pointing out the basis which is given in that opinion by the Court. I will also point out that Scart's evasion of the Fourteenth Amendment is an example of what i have come to expect from Scrat's postings. If you present an argument with which it does not wish to disagree, or feels unable to do so--which applied i cannot say--then you will not hear from it again. If it seems to think that their is a chink into which it may insert a rhetorical crow, it will try to pry apart your agument on that point alone, ignoring all others. When i post on constitutional issues and the Supremes, i rely upon the text of the document and the opinions of the Court as has been published by the Court. Scrat's argument here is an attempt to ascribe to my opinion what is in fact the Court's opinion, and then to object on grounds which the Court obviously does not agree with, given the opinion the Court has published.

0 Replies

Not beyond debate, scrat. For continued debate. But debate doesn't much occur where fixed simplistic ideas reign.

This discussion of the constitution and how it ought to be regarded in modern jurisprudence is a very sophisticated one and a lot of very good minds address it in its complexity. You don't.

0 Replies

scrat that position is not even worth answering....the current administration oppresses naked statues, much less homosexuals...and that's irrefutable....so YOU get over it.

0 Replies

Setanta - Yes, you finally understand that I disagree with Kennedy, O'Connor and the majority decision here. Now, how is that any different than you personal disagreement with the majority 7-2 decision in Bush V. Gore? Again, you pretend it is unthinkable that I think I know better than they, but somehow it is a different matter when you disagree with a justice or justices or a ruling of the court.

The only difference between us is that you start from what you want decided, and I start from what the Constitution reads. Small wonder that you always end up where you want to go while I sometimes (about 50/50) have to accept that what should happen is not what I want.

(And your link is not valid.)

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

scrat that position is not even worth answering....the current administration oppresses naked statues, much less homosexuals...and that's irrefutable....so YOU get over it.

How does one "oppress" a statue, exactly? Confused

0 Replies

Yes Scrat, disingenuous -- when you try to make out that a statement of the basis of majority opinion of the Supremes is only my opinion, you are willfully ignoring the simplest and strongest objection to what you write--that the majority opinion of the Court was based upon the Fourth Amendment, and the Justic O'Connor cites the Fourteenth Amendment in the same context. You need to get over yourself; sneering at me will not alter what the Court decided, nor will alter on what bases the Court has issued its majority opinion.

Elsewhere in these fora, when i had posted about the Supremes, i noted that, quote: "Liberals and Conservatives . . . " seem to think that the Supremes decree from on high by fiat. I then remarked that the court has a very admirable history of applying interpretations of the constitution to findings of fact to produce findings of law. Therefore, Scrat's remark that: "And I absolutely LOVE how much respect liberals have for the decisions of the Supreme Court--this notion that "the supremes have ruled it so, therefor it is beyond debate", does not seem to extend to Bush V. Gore." -- is not one which can be addressed to me. I got one remark after the other from liberal members here suggesting that they did not trust the Court's probity in making such decisions, much as do conservatives. I consider the Court, based on its entire history, as well as its recent history, to be reliable in the matter.

So, to finish, Scrat, you should deliver your line: " . . . is that you can't separate what you want from what is true." -- while looking in the mirror.

0 Replies

Setanta - I am disagreeing with YOUR opinion, because YOU are the one who is here to have the debate. That's not "disingenuous", it's REALITY. That you would rather whine about nonsensical issues like this than try to support your own position (and stop hiding behind the "they think so too!" defense) speaks volumes for your mettle.

The only one being "disingenuous" here is you. You state your position and then act the coward when I challenge you to back it up.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Setanta - Yes, you finally understand that I disagree with Kennedy, O'Connor and the majority decision here. Now, how is that any different than you personal disagreement with the majority 7-2 decision in Bush V. Gore? Again, you pretend it is unthinkable that I think I know better than they, but somehow it is a different matter when you disagree with a justice or justices or a ruling of the court.

The only difference between us is that you start from what you want decided, and I start from what the Constitution reads. Small wonder that you always end up where you want to go while I sometimes (about 50/50) have to accept that what should happen is not what I want.

(And your link is not valid.)

No, i have not objected to the Supreme's decision in the Florida matter, nor have i ever said as much. I have consistently said that the matter should never have been sent to the Supreme Court, and that it represents a dangerous precedent in the matter of separation of powers. I have not stated what i have "wanted decided," i've simply given the basis for the decision of the Court in the Texas Sodomy case, as the Court itself reports. The rest of your post is just sneering, which does not surprise me. I'll go fix that link, so you needn't be upset by it any longer.

0 Replies

well scrat ask John Ashcroft, that's his area.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Setanta - I am disagreeing with YOUR opinion, because YOU are the one who is here to have the debate.

No, i did not offer opinion. It is a fact that the Supremes overturned the Texas Sodomy statute. It is a fact that the basis given in the majority opinion is the Fourth Amendment. It is a fact that Justice O'Connor cites the Fourteenth Amendment.

Quote:

That's not "disingenuous", it's REALITY.

No, it is not reality, read what i've already written above.

Quote:

That you would rather whine about nonsensical issues like this than try to support your own position (and stop hiding behind the "they think so too!" defense) speaks volumes for your mettle.

I've done no whining--i've just pointed out that you are wrong about the constitutional issues and the Court's decisions--as you seem always to be--i've never seen you take a position on the constitution which would leave me to believe that you actually know what is written there; i've never seen you take a position on the Court which would lead me to believe that you read the opinions. I'm making no defense--i've no interest in defending what the Court has decided. There is no question of my "mettle" here, except in your feeble attempt to resort to ad hominem now that your position is crumbling around your ears.

Quote:

The only one being "disingenuous" here is you. You state your position and then act the coward when I challenge you to back it up.

Once again, i stated what the Court has used as the basis for the majority opinion, and you offered no challenge to me, because there is nothing in what i wrote to challenge, although you may certainly challenge Justice Kennedy's written opinion, if he'd take the time to listen to you. You are indeed being disingenuous, and it's getting worse, because you're trying to imply that i've made an argument, when i fact i've simply stated the Court's basis for its majority opinion. And, of course, you resort once again to ad hominem by calling me a coward--because, of course, you have no argument against Justice Kennedy's opinion.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

well scrat ask John Ashcroft, that's his area.

Yes, and if one man has one stupid idea then the whole shebang is flawed, right?

I'll agree that Ashcroft seems a bit of a boob. Can you accept that his opinion (whatever it is??) on statues has nothing to do with anything we are discussing?

0 Replies

Setanta - You do yourself no service in denying what you have written in this very discussion, and from which our current disagreement sprang:

Setanta wrote:

Scrat wrote:
And--despite what some misguided Republicans may think, the only problem I see with the USSC decision on the TX sodomy law is that the USSC agreed to hear the case at all. The USSC should have stayed the hell out of it, since the Constitution is mute on the issue.

It always mystifies me that people seem to think that the Supremes act as some pontifical college, decreeing law by fiat from on High. Liberal or Conservative, when a majority opinion of the court gores someone's particular ox, they decry the action as though it had occurred in some legalistic void.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Basically stated, applying the Fourth Amendment says keep yer nose outta my bedroom, and applying the Fourteenth Amendment says that if yer gonna let married couples "rump-wrestle," ya gotta let ever body do it. You'd have had a stronger case to make by objecting to the Supremes striking down Georgia's sodomy law, which prohibited sodomy without reference to "sexual orientation"--although your argument against the Court's action would still be very weak indeed, in view of the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . . "

The sections I bolded above are clearly your opinions. That you are stating agreement with others does not mean you are not sharing your opinion. "I agree with Jimbo" is a statement of opinion.

I agree with you that a blanket ban on sodomy would make more sense than simply banning it for certain pairings. I agree that the Texas ban on sodomy--whatever its provisions--is stupid and should be overturned. But, whether I think that or do not does not change the fact that the Constitution is mute on the issue, and you have yet to offer anything more compelling than "IS TOO! IS TOO! IS TOO!" to support your argument to the contrary.

If what you've offered so far is the best you've got then you have nothing to offer. You can't simply continue to point to the fact that they decided X as proof that they were right to decide X, any more than I can point to Bush V Gore as proof that Bush V Gore was decided correctly.

0 Replies

No I cannot. Ashcroft is highly representative of the thinking and direction of our government and our leaders, and republicans support him and the people (GWB) who CHOSE him and give him free reign for his psychotic behavior.

These guys are supplying the government you want and the ethical base you desire. Be happy.

0 Replies

Republicans branching out to old Dem stronghold.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know