Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote:
>Heck's Kitchen wrote:
>
>> I believe that the laws on such conduct should be enacted
>> by state-by-state legal process, not by 6 judges in DC.
>Would you say the same thing if a majority of the USSC
>refuses to overturn a state gun control law and says that
>such laws ought to be "enacted by state-by-state legal
>process"?
Fair point, but the key question is whether or not the behavior is
constitutionally protected.
Some things are tolerable for state legislatures to make stupid
statutes about, and some aren't. The best case against anti-sodomy
laws is that they can not be fairly enforced across society except by
unconstitutional means.
>You need to start thinking of individual *liberty*
>(as this recent majority opinion makes clear)
>when it comes to any level of government sticking
>its nose where it isn't needed. To not do so
>only invites other you disagree with to claim the
>same interpretation for denying your own favorite
>rights.
My problem is that they are carving out a narrow right of privacy,
instead of a broad one. I believe that the right to privacy should
extend to more spheres, not this limited politically-correct one. I
believe that cops should have to give a Miranda-type disclosure before
obtaining consent for a search that would not be permissible without
consent, for instance.
By expanding the sphere of rights that are treated as
Constitutionally-protected (which is tempting because of the areas
where the sphere has been contracted, and the enumerated powers have
been expanded) we risk turning the Supreme Court into a monarchy,
using their judgement to make decrees that limit our rights to
establish states that offer differing alternatives for a diverse
society.
