Do Republicans Want Being Gay To Be a Crime?

[JoeB131]

The fact is this: the Constitution is organic, not fixed, and time and opinion have effect on its interpretation. SCOTUS says what the law is, period.

Guy, that's horseshit.

Either Hardwicke was judicial activism, or Lawrence was.

I'm inclined to say that Lawrence was.

If the Supreme Court is going to become "Congress by other means", then it isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing.

 

[JoeB131]

Do Republicans Want Being Gay To Be a Crime?

[youtube]OSDQQtHKakU[/youtube]
30 seconds into video:

question: Is being a gay Republican a crime?

Frank: "It would be if Republicans had their way."

mentions in Texas it was a crime for same sex intimacy, and George W. Bush said it should remain a crime, SCOTUS disagreed .. Scalia vehemently dissented, Thomas dissented, Rehnquist dissented, Rick Santorum went crazy over decision...

The GOP went from hating women and blacks to hating Gays and Latinos/Hispanics

Here's my problem with the Lawrence v. Texas Decision.

In 1986, they had a ruling, Georgia v. Hardwicke, which ruled that various laws against anal and oral sex were constitutionally allowed state laws. The immediate effect was that states that were actually kind of sensible like Wisconsin said, "Oh, Shit, we still have laws like this on the books" and they changed the laws. A few states like Texas didn't.

But the problem I have is how could they be completely constitutional in 1985 and unconstitutional in 2005. The constitution didn't change in any signifigant way. Opinions on the court did.

*reality check, in 1985, we had the AIDS epidemic running wild, and not a lot of understanding of how it spread. So the Justices can be cut a little slack.

The Supreme Court frequently overturns previous Supreme Court rulings and finds things that were once considered Constitutional, unconstitutional as we progress as a society.

That's how.

No, that's just playing politics.

Either something is perfectly allowable under the constitution, or it isn't.

When the court makes a decision like Lawrence, or Roe v. Wade or whatever they are going to do today with the Health Care Law, and they are merely doing it on political lines, then they aren't performing their function.

Progress is what happened after Hardwicke. A lot of these states were shocked to find they still had these antiquated laws on the books, and changed them. That's how the system is supposed to work. The Legislature legislates, the Judiciary adjudicates, the Executive executes. If you don't like the law, lobby to get a new law passed.

When you have judges saying, "Well, this is what the constitution would allow if I had written it", that's judicial activism, and its' wrong whether its done on the left or the right.

 

[Seawytch]

Here's my problem with the Lawrence v. Texas Decision.

In 1986, they had a ruling, Georgia v. Hardwicke, which ruled that various laws against anal and oral sex were constitutionally allowed state laws. The immediate effect was that states that were actually kind of sensible like Wisconsin said, "Oh, Shit, we still have laws like this on the books" and they changed the laws. A few states like Texas didn't.

But the problem I have is how could they be completely constitutional in 1985 and unconstitutional in 2005. The constitution didn't change in any signifigant way. Opinions on the court did.

*reality check, in 1985, we had the AIDS epidemic running wild, and not a lot of understanding of how it spread. So the Justices can be cut a little slack.

The Supreme Court frequently overturns previous Supreme Court rulings and finds things that were once considered Constitutional, unconstitutional as we progress as a society.

That's how.

No, that's just playing politics.

Either something is perfectly allowable under the constitution, or it isn't.

When the court makes a decision like Lawrence, or Roe v. Wade or whatever they are going to do today with the Health Care Law, and they are merely doing it on political lines, then they aren't performing their function.

Progress is what happened after Hardwicke. A lot of these states were shocked to find they still had these antiquated laws on the books, and changed them. That's how the system is supposed to work. The Legislature legislates, the Judiciary adjudicates, the Executive executes. If you don't like the law, lobby to get a new law passed.

When you have judges saying, "Well, this is what the constitution would allow if I had written it", that's judicial activism, and its' wrong whether its done on the left or the right.

It's hardly "politics". Women not voting was not allowed under the "original" Constitution...then it was. Blacks were not considered fully human under the "original"...until they were. That was all "political"?

 

[JoeB131]

The Supreme Court frequently overturns previous Supreme Court rulings and finds things that were once considered Constitutional, unconstitutional as we progress as a society.

That's how.

No, that's just playing politics.

Either something is perfectly allowable under the constitution, or it isn't.

When the court makes a decision like Lawrence, or Roe v. Wade or whatever they are going to do today with the Health Care Law, and they are merely doing it on political lines, then they aren't performing their function.

Progress is what happened after Hardwicke. A lot of these states were shocked to find they still had these antiquated laws on the books, and changed them. That's how the system is supposed to work. The Legislature legislates, the Judiciary adjudicates, the Executive executes. If you don't like the law, lobby to get a new law passed.

When you have judges saying, "Well, this is what the constitution would allow if I had written it", that's judicial activism, and its' wrong whether its done on the left or the right.

It's hardly "politics". Women not voting was not allowed under the "original" Constitution...then it was. Blacks were not considered fully human under the "original"...until they were. That was all "political"?

Well, exactly. In the case of sufferage- they used the system. Someone proposed an amendment in congress, 2/3rds of both houses voted for it, and 3/4ths of all the states ratified it. The same with equal rights with the three "Reconstruction" amendments...

What didn't happen was a Court saying, "Gosh, women's right to vote would be in the constitution if I had written it, so it is!"

Because it would be just as easy to appoint judges who could rule the other way, with no recourse. Or worse, you don't know how they'll turn out.

Someone asked Eisenhower what his two biggest regrets were, and he said, "They are both sitting on the Supreme Court."

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is this: the Constitution is organic, not fixed, and time and opinion have effect on its interpretation. SCOTUS says what the law is, period.

Guy, that's horseshit.

Either Hardwicke was judicial activism, or Lawrence was.

I'm inclined to say that Lawrence was.

If the Supreme Court is going to become "Congress by other means", then it isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing.

You clearly do not understand the constitutional narrative, so your opinion matters not.

 

[JoeB131]

The fact is this: the Constitution is organic, not fixed, and time and opinion have effect on its interpretation. SCOTUS says what the law is, period.

Guy, that's horseshit.

Either Hardwicke was judicial activism, or Lawrence was.

I'm inclined to say that Lawrence was.

If the Supreme Court is going to become "Congress by other means", then it isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing.

You clearly do not understand the constitutional narrative, so your opinion matters not.

More deflection.

How can one decision be right and the other be wrong?

Simple. They can't.

One of those two decisions was judicial activism.

And that was Lawrence, not Hardwicke.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The fact is this: the Constitution is organic, not fixed, and time and opinion have effect on its interpretation. SCOTUS says what the law is, period.

Guy, that's horseshit.

Either Hardwicke was judicial activism, or Lawrence was.

I'm inclined to say that Lawrence was.

If the Supreme Court is going to become "Congress by other means", then it isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing.

You clearly do not understand the constitutional narrative, so your opinion matters not.

Ok Jake, you are a leftwinger masquerading as a "independant" with your "living" document. IF that's true, why have the amendment process, since the court can just rule on shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Buckeyes, you as a right wing extremist masquerading as an "independent" is boring.

You will have to study the constitutional narrative to answer your question, because you clearly do not know it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Buckeyes, you as a right wing extremist masquerading as an "independent" is boring.

You will have to study the constitutional narrative to answer your question, because you clearly do not know it.

God you're a hack, I never claimed to be independat, so stop with the projection.
And again you dodge the question with a noanswer, I'm starting to get a pattern.

You cant even state a simple premise on why the Constitution has an amendment process if the Supreme Court can just make shit up out of thin air. Where are those commie....er academic sources you love so much?

 

[Seawytch]

Guy, that's horseshit.

Either Hardwicke was judicial activism, or Lawrence was.

I'm inclined to say that Lawrence was.

If the Supreme Court is going to become "Congress by other means", then it isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing.

You clearly do not understand the constitutional narrative, so your opinion matters not.

More deflection.

How can one decision be right and the other be wrong?

Simple. They can't.

One of those two decisions was judicial activism.

And that was Lawrence, not Hardwicke.

Yes, it was "activism" that overturned state's bans on interracial marriage. It was "activism" that stopped putting consenting adult couples in jail for consensual anal and oral sex. Seriously? We should have just kept banning interracial marriage and arresting couples for consensual sex until the rest of society "caught up"? Really?

Interracial marriage bans were struck down in the 60s. Interracial marriage did not enjoy majority support until the 90s. We should have waited until then?

 

[JakeStarkey]

God, you are a hack, because I never claimed to be an "independent." Stop your projection. See, you can't take it what you try to dish out. I will keep kicking your ass until you get this right.

Your question is not germane to the problem is your problem. Go ahead and post some good sources since it is your question. You don't get to make up stuff then demand others posts sources to refute you.

You are not even acceptable at this, hack.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here's my problem with the Lawrence v. Texas Decision.

In 1986, they had a ruling, Georgia v. Hardwicke, which ruled that various laws against anal and oral sex were constitutionally allowed state laws. The immediate effect was that states that were actually kind of sensible like Wisconsin said, "Oh, Shit, we still have laws like this on the books" and they changed the laws. A few states like Texas didn't.

But the problem I have is how could they be completely constitutional in 1985 and unconstitutional in 2005. The constitution didn't change in any signifigant way. Opinions on the court did.

*reality check, in 1985, we had the AIDS epidemic running wild, and not a lot of understanding of how it spread. So the Justices can be cut a little slack.

As a Stalinist, you should understand that the constitution means only what the party wants it to mean at any given moment.

The rule of men, rather than the rule of law, is what you of the far left seek.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The fact is this: the Constitution is organic, not fixed, and time and opinion have effect on its interpretation. SCOTUS says what the law is, period.

Then we are a dictatorship, and the concept of a legislature is a farce to placate the masses?

That is what totalitarians like you seek, Jake - but I'm not convinced that liberty is as completely crushed as you think.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I wish we could clone JakeStarkey and have those clones replace every Republican in Congress. Something tells me things would be a hell of a lot better.

You love Jake because he a Stalinist, just like you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

ConservaDerrps, there are many, many great GOP in Congress.

Oh look, "republican" Jake is making common cause with the most radical of the extreme left...

What a surprise.

Our problem is that we let the extremist wacks take over because the mainstream was not really paying attention. The Democrats have had the same problem.

The Republican primary season repudiated the wacka wacka sillies from the far right this time, and quite a number of them at the state and local levels.

The Dems better catch on they have to do the same, or we will kick their asses forever.

It's nice that you found another Stalinist to share your interests with, Fakey.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

I just adore that to Right-Wingers the Constitution's unquestioned status as a living document is somehow radical Left-Wing thinking.

LOL @ Dummy Conservadopes

 

[Uncensored2008]

I just adore that to Right-Wingers the Constitution's unquestioned status as a living document is somehow radical Left-Wing thinking.

LOL @ Dummy Conservadopes

The method for changing the constitution is well outlined in the constitution, and it does not include 9, unelected dictators making law by their word.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

I just adore that to Right-Wingers the Constitution's unquestioned status as a living document is somehow radical Left-Wing thinking.

LOL @ Dummy Conservadopes

The method for changing the constitution is well outlined in the constitution, and it does not include 9, unelected dictators making law by their word.

 

[Uncensored2008]

.

Amendments are the way to change the constitution, retard.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

.

Amendments are the way to change the constitution, retard.

Go back and look through my posts and find where I said that the SCOTUS changes the Constitution, dummy. I said they interpret it. Which they do. According to you know, scholars and people who know shit.