Religions > Atheism > (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
02 Jul 2005 03:24:07 AM |
| Object: |
(sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
* Requiring evolution to be taught in school = Emerson v. Arkansas
* Legalizing abortion-on-demand = Roe v. Wade; Doe v. Bolton
* Erecting the wall of separation of church and state = Everson v.
Board of Education
* Outlawing prayer in school = Engle v. Vitale
* Barring Bible reading in school = Abington v. Schempp
* Forbidding Ten Commandments displays at school = Stone v. Graham
* Censoring graduation prayers = Lee v. Weisman
* Prohibiting creationist lessons = McLean v. Arkansas
* Overturning child pornography laws = Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition
* Overturning the ban of partial-birth abortion = Carhart v.
Stenberg
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
* Recognizing same-sex "marriages" = Goodridge v. Department of
Public Health
Each of these cases undermines founding principles and represents an
attempt to somehow deny the inherent value of human life: endowed by
our Creator, recognized in the Declaration and underscored by our
Constitution. The combined and tentacle-like impact of these decisions
on our nation is staggering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45092
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "ErikW" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
02 Jul 2005 07:30:48 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
* Requiring evolution to be taught in school = Emerson v. Arkansas
* Legalizing abortion-on-demand = Roe v. Wade; Doe v. Bolton
* Erecting the wall of separation of church and state = Everson v.
Board of Education
* Outlawing prayer in school = Engle v. Vitale
* Barring Bible reading in school = Abington v. Schempp
* Forbidding Ten Commandments displays at school = Stone v. Graham
* Censoring graduation prayers = Lee v. Weisman
* Prohibiting creationist lessons = McLean v. Arkansas
* Overturning child pornography laws = Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition
* Overturning the ban of partial-birth abortion = Carhart v.
Stenberg
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
* Recognizing same-sex "marriages" = Goodridge v. Department of
Public Health
Each of these cases undermines founding principles and represents an
attempt to somehow deny the inherent value of human life: endowed by
our Creator, recognized in the Declaration and underscored by our
Constitution. The combined and tentacle-like impact of these decisions
on our nation is staggering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45092
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grogs" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
02 Jul 2005 09:24:24 AM |
|
|
"ErikW" <bryophyta@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1120307448.056022.182000
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
* Requiring evolution to be taught in school = Emerson v. Arkansas
* Legalizing abortion-on-demand = Roe v. Wade; Doe v. Bolton
* Erecting the wall of separation of church and state = Everson v.
Board of Education
* Outlawing prayer in school = Engle v. Vitale
* Barring Bible reading in school = Abington v. Schempp
* Forbidding Ten Commandments displays at school = Stone v. Graham
* Censoring graduation prayers = Lee v. Weisman
* Prohibiting creationist lessons = McLean v. Arkansas
* Overturning child pornography laws = Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition
* Overturning the ban of partial-birth abortion = Carhart v.
Stenberg
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
In this case, it was homosexual sex. Basically, the police raided the
house for drugs and found two men in bed together. Texas, like many
states (especially here in the South,) still has lots of old sodomy laws
on the books. For example, there was a man in Georgia a few years back
who went to prison for performing cunnilingus on his wife. Lawrence v.
Texas basically says 2 consenting adults can do whatever they want in the
privacy of their homes. Here's a link to a brief summary of the
decision:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
02 Jul 2005 11:26:17 AM |
|
|
Grogs wrote:
"ErikW" <bryophyta@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1120307448.056022.182000
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
* Requiring evolution to be taught in school = Emerson v. Arkansas
* Legalizing abortion-on-demand = Roe v. Wade; Doe v. Bolton
* Erecting the wall of separation of church and state = Everson v.
Board of Education
* Outlawing prayer in school = Engle v. Vitale
* Barring Bible reading in school = Abington v. Schempp
* Forbidding Ten Commandments displays at school = Stone v. Graham
* Censoring graduation prayers = Lee v. Weisman
* Prohibiting creationist lessons = McLean v. Arkansas
* Overturning child pornography laws = Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition
* Overturning the ban of partial-birth abortion = Carhart v.
Stenberg
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
In this case, it was homosexual sex. Basically, the police raided the
house for drugs and found two men in bed together. Texas, like many
states (especially here in the South,) still has lots of old sodomy laws
on the books. For example, there was a man in Georgia a few years back
who went to prison for performing cunnilingus on his wife. Lawrence v.
Texas basically says 2 consenting adults can do whatever they want in the
privacy of their homes. Here's a link to a brief summary of the
decision:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
I've heard that it's still illegal for a man and a woman to live
together in North Dakota.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
02 Jul 2005 07:29:35 PM |
|
|
"Ian H Spedding" <ian.spedding@homecall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1120321577.106497.188430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snipping
I've heard that it's still illegal for a man and a woman to live
together in North Dakota.
If a married couple get a divorce in West Virginia, are they still brother
and sister?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
02 Jul 2005 08:42:58 PM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"Ian H Spedding" <ian.spedding@homecall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1120321577.106497.188430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snipping
I've heard that it's still illegal for a man and a woman to live
together in North Dakota.
If a married couple get a divorce in West Virginia, are they still brother
and sister?
DJT
I lived in North Carolina in the 1990's. My then girlfriend (now wife)
had two male roommates when she was a grad student at UNCW in
Wilmington. due to NC laws she could not be on the lease of the house.
Males and females who live together MUST be related by blood or
marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do theright thing! |
02 Jul 2005 09:25:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"Ian H Spedding" <ian.spedding@homecall.co.uk> wrote:
I've heard that it's still illegal for a man and a woman to live
together in North Dakota.
If a married couple get a divorce in West Virginia, are they still brother
and sister?
I lived in North Carolina in the 1990's. My then girlfriend (now wife)
had two male roommates when she was a grad student at UNCW in
Wilmington. due to NC laws she could not be on the lease of the house.
Males and females who live together MUST be related by blood or
marriage.
They'd have probably stoned her to death.
--Jeff
--
The shepherd always tries to persuade
the sheep that their interests and
his own are the same. --Stendhal
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
05 Jul 2005 11:39:31 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Ian H Spedding <ian.spedding@homecall.co.uk> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Grogs wrote:
"ErikW" <bryophyta@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1120307448.056022.182000
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
* Requiring evolution to be taught in school = Emerson v. Arkansas
* Legalizing abortion-on-demand = Roe v. Wade; Doe v. Bolton
* Erecting the wall of separation of church and state = Everson v.
Board of Education
* Outlawing prayer in school = Engle v. Vitale
* Barring Bible reading in school = Abington v. Schempp
* Forbidding Ten Commandments displays at school = Stone v. Graham
* Censoring graduation prayers = Lee v. Weisman
* Prohibiting creationist lessons = McLean v. Arkansas
* Overturning child pornography laws = Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition
* Overturning the ban of partial-birth abortion = Carhart v.
Stenberg
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
In this case, it was homosexual sex. Basically, the police raided the
house for drugs and found two men in bed together. Texas, like many
states (especially here in the South,) still has lots of old sodomy laws
on the books. For example, there was a man in Georgia a few years back
who went to prison for performing cunnilingus on his wife. Lawrence v.
Texas basically says 2 consenting adults can do whatever they want in the
privacy of their homes. Here's a link to a brief summary of the
decision:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
I've heard that it's still illegal for a man and a woman to live
together in North Dakota.
No place as remote as that. The case that's been in the news
lately was in North Carolina. Sheriff's deputy was fired
for cohabiting, which is against the law.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Estragon: People are bloody ignorant apes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Guillory" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
05 Jul 2005 04:55:41 PM |
|
|
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:11cldu3dm1jenf4@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Ian H Spedding <ian.spedding@homecall.co.uk> sanoi,
hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Grogs wrote:
"ErikW" <bryophyta@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1120307448.056022.182000
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how
judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were
impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
* Requiring evolution to be taught in school = Emerson v.
Arkansas
* Legalizing abortion-on-demand = Roe v. Wade; Doe v. Bolton
* Erecting the wall of separation of church and state = Everson
v.
Board of Education
* Outlawing prayer in school = Engle v. Vitale
* Barring Bible reading in school = Abington v. Schempp
* Forbidding Ten Commandments displays at school = Stone v.
Graham
* Censoring graduation prayers = Lee v. Weisman
* Prohibiting creationist lessons = McLean v. Arkansas
* Overturning child pornography laws = Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition
* Overturning the ban of partial-birth abortion = Carhart v.
Stenberg
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral
sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
In this case, it was homosexual sex. Basically, the police raided the
house for drugs and found two men in bed together. Texas, like many
states (especially here in the South,) still has lots of old sodomy
laws
on the books. For example, there was a man in Georgia a few years back
who went to prison for performing cunnilingus on his wife. Lawrence v.
Texas basically says 2 consenting adults can do whatever they want in
the
privacy of their homes. Here's a link to a brief summary of the
decision:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
I've heard that it's still illegal for a man and a woman to live
together in North Dakota.
No place as remote as that. The case that's been in the news
lately was in North Carolina. Sheriff's deputy was fired
for cohabiting, which is against the law.
In what way is North Carolina less remote than North Dakota??
My sociology professor explained the Texas common law marriage to us
roughly like this: On the frontier many communities did not see an ordained
minister or justice of the peace for years. It was not uncommon for the the
children of a frontier couple to be the witnesses to their marriage. So
common law marriage was allowed to give people who cohabitate the legal
rights of marriage.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s a conservative religious revival
pushed through laws in some states banning cohabitation. The same revival
was responsible for the temperance movement.
Here's a website on the legal status of cohabitation :
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/7_states.htm
Regards,
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
05 Jul 2005 05:19:08 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Jim Guillory <jdguil@cox-internet.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:11cldu3dm1jenf4@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Ian H Spedding <ian.spedding@homecall.co.uk> sanoi,
hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Grogs wrote:
"ErikW" <bryophyta@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1120307448.056022.182000
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how
judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were
impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
* Requiring evolution to be taught in school = Emerson v.
Arkansas
* Legalizing abortion-on-demand = Roe v. Wade; Doe v. Bolton
* Erecting the wall of separation of church and state = Everson
v.
Board of Education
* Outlawing prayer in school = Engle v. Vitale
* Barring Bible reading in school = Abington v. Schempp
* Forbidding Ten Commandments displays at school = Stone v.
Graham
* Censoring graduation prayers = Lee v. Weisman
* Prohibiting creationist lessons = McLean v. Arkansas
* Overturning child pornography laws = Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition
* Overturning the ban of partial-birth abortion = Carhart v.
Stenberg
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral
sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
In this case, it was homosexual sex. Basically, the police raided the
house for drugs and found two men in bed together. Texas, like many
states (especially here in the South,) still has lots of old sodomy
laws
on the books. For example, there was a man in Georgia a few years back
who went to prison for performing cunnilingus on his wife. Lawrence v.
Texas basically says 2 consenting adults can do whatever they want in
the
privacy of their homes. Here's a link to a brief summary of the
decision:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
I've heard that it's still illegal for a man and a woman to live
together in North Dakota.
No place as remote as that. The case that's been in the news
lately was in North Carolina. Sheriff's deputy was fired
for cohabiting, which is against the law.
In what way is North Carolina less remote than North Dakota??
North Dakota: 630,000 people
3000 miles from the nearest gas station
North Carolina: 8,400,000 people
Less than 200 miles from capital of Earth (DC)
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Estragon: People are bloody ignorant apes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ErikW" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
02 Jul 2005 11:17:05 AM |
|
|
Grogs wrote:
"ErikW" <bryophyta@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1120307448.056022.182000
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
* Requiring evolution to be taught in school = Emerson v. Arkansas
* Legalizing abortion-on-demand = Roe v. Wade; Doe v. Bolton
* Erecting the wall of separation of church and state = Everson v.
Board of Education
* Outlawing prayer in school = Engle v. Vitale
* Barring Bible reading in school = Abington v. Schempp
* Forbidding Ten Commandments displays at school = Stone v. Graham
* Censoring graduation prayers = Lee v. Weisman
* Prohibiting creationist lessons = McLean v. Arkansas
* Overturning child pornography laws = Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition
* Overturning the ban of partial-birth abortion = Carhart v.
Stenberg
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
In this case, it was homosexual sex. Basically, the police raided the
house for drugs and found two men in bed together. Texas, like many
states (especially here in the South,) still has lots of old sodomy laws
on the books. For example, there was a man in Georgia a few years back
who went to prison for performing cunnilingus on his wife. Lawrence v.
Texas basically says 2 consenting adults can do whatever they want in the
privacy of their homes. Here's a link to a brief summary of the
decision:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
HOLY SMOKE! This was 2003? What planet is Texas on?
....
This is not an easy thing to digest.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan Gosnell" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
02 Jul 2005 07:18:40 PM |
|
|
"ErikW" <bryophyta@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1120321025.647667.38600@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
HOLY SMOKE! This was 2003? What planet is Texas on?
This one. In this country. Pretty much identical to most of the other
states, just a little more racist and conservative than most, but not by
all that much. You had better wake up now, or risk waking up in prison
or worse.
--
Regards,
Stan
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
02 Jul 2005 11:12:52 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Grogs <grogs@nomail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
In this case, it was homosexual sex. Basically, the police raided the
house for drugs and found two men in bed together.
Of course, this was a setup intended to challenge the law. The police
were given a "tip".
Texas, like many
states (especially here in the South,) still has lots of old sodomy laws
on the books. For example, there was a man in Georgia a few years back
who went to prison for performing cunnilingus on his wife.
I do not believe this. I haven't seen a single sodomy
prosecution cross the wire except for homosexuality, pederasty
or occasionally prostitution.
rich
Lawrence v.
Texas basically says 2 consenting adults can do whatever they want in the
privacy of their homes. Here's a link to a brief summary of the
decision:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
<snip>
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Estragon: People are bloody ignorant apes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grogs" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do the right thing! |
02 Jul 2005 12:55:50 PM |
|
|
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in
news:11cdf843d79e6d6@corp.supernews.com:
In talk.origins Grogs <grogs@nomail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral
sex to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right?
Does someone know what this is?
In this case, it was homosexual sex. Basically, the police raided
the house for drugs and found two men in bed together.
Of course, this was a setup intended to challenge the law. The police
were given a "tip".
Do you know who gave the 'tip?'
BTW, my previous statement was incorrect. It was a 'weapons
disturbance,' not a drug bust the police were responding to.
Texas, like many
states (especially here in the South,) still has lots of old sodomy
laws on the books. For example, there was a man in Georgia a few
years back who went to prison for performing cunnilingus on his wife.
I do not believe this. I haven't seen a single sodomy
prosecution cross the wire except for homosexuality, pederasty
or occasionally prostitution.
And yet it happened:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/sodomy.html
The reason I remembered it is because I saw him interviewed on '60
Minutes' several years ago while he was in prison. Apparently, he
visited his wife (they were separated at the time, but not divorced) and
had sex. She accused him of rape and he was charged with rape, oral
sodomy, and anal sodomy. The jury didn't buy the rape charges, but
convicted him (based on his own admission) of 'simple oral sodomy.'
rich
Lawrence v.
Texas basically says 2 consenting adults can do whatever they want in
the privacy of their homes. Here's a link to a brief summary of the
decision:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do theright thing! |
02 Jul 2005 05:33:07 PM |
|
|
Grogs wrote:
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in
news:11cdf843d79e6d6@corp.supernews.com:
In talk.origins Grogs <grogs@nomail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral
sex to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right?
Does someone know what this is?
In this case, it was homosexual sex. Basically, the police raided
the house for drugs and found two men in bed together.
Of course, this was a setup intended to challenge the law. The police
were given a "tip".
Do you know who gave the 'tip?'
BTW, my previous statement was incorrect. It was a 'weapons
disturbance,' not a drug bust the police were responding to.
Texas, like many
states (especially here in the South,) still has lots of old sodomy
laws on the books. For example, there was a man in Georgia a few
years back who went to prison for performing cunnilingus on his wife.
I do not believe this. I haven't seen a single sodomy
prosecution cross the wire except for homosexuality, pederasty
or occasionally prostitution.
And yet it happened:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/sodomy.html
The reason I remembered it is because I saw him interviewed on '60
Minutes' several years ago while he was in prison. Apparently, he
visited his wife (they were separated at the time, but not divorced) and
had sex. She accused him of rape and he was charged with rape, oral
sodomy, and anal sodomy. The jury didn't buy the rape charges, but
convicted him (based on his own admission) of 'simple oral sodomy.'
Unfrigging believable. But I loved his attorney's comment about
the high recidivism rate.
--Jeff
--
The shepherd always tries to persuade
the sheep that their interests and
his own are the same. --Stendhal
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do theright thing! |
02 Jul 2005 09:42:38 AM |
|
|
ErikW wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
* Requiring evolution to be taught in school = Emerson v. Arkansas
* Legalizing abortion-on-demand = Roe v. Wade; Doe v. Bolton
* Erecting the wall of separation of church and state = Everson v.
Board of Education
* Outlawing prayer in school = Engle v. Vitale
* Barring Bible reading in school = Abington v. Schempp
* Forbidding Ten Commandments displays at school = Stone v. Graham
* Censoring graduation prayers = Lee v. Weisman
* Prohibiting creationist lessons = McLean v. Arkansas
* Overturning child pornography laws = Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition
* Overturning the ban of partial-birth abortion = Carhart v.
Stenberg
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
Most sodomy laws were worded in ways that allowed anything except
intercourse to be prosecuted. Of course it was only enforce against
cheating spouses and homosexuals.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "ErikW" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do theright thing! |
02 Jul 2005 11:32:47 AM |
|
|
Ken Shaw wrote:
ErikW wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
snip
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
Most sodomy laws were worded in ways that allowed anything except
intercourse to be prosecuted. Of course it was only enforce against
cheating spouses and homosexuals.
But they're not useable anymore then. Good. Is anyone, except for Ms.
Hollowell, honestly trying to reverse this Lawrence vs. Texas decision?
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do therightthing! |
02 Jul 2005 12:26:01 PM |
|
|
ErikW wrote:
Ken Shaw wrote:
ErikW wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Note "Emerson v. Arkansas" below. And Hollowell claims to be an
attorney.
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
As for the upsurge in social ills, let's see, in general, how judicial
activism has contributed. All of the following decisions were impacted
by the jurists' worldviews, which naturally include his or her
position on life.
snip
* Establishing a constitutional right to sodomy = Lawrence v.
Texas
Lol. What is this? In dictionary.com sodomy gave evything from oral sex
to beastiality. Texas wasn't trying to forbid oral sex, right? Does
someone know what this is?
Most sodomy laws were worded in ways that allowed anything except
intercourse to be prosecuted. Of course it was only enforce against
cheating spouses and homosexuals.
But they're not useable anymore then. Good. Is anyone, except for Ms.
Hollowell, honestly trying to reverse this Lawrence vs. Texas decision?
Search google and you'll see that a lot of xtian conservatives are for
exactly that.
Many of the groups that directly influence the social platform of the
GOP favor stacking SCOTUS and reversing a number of very important
rulings since they realize the near impossibility of amending the US
Constitution for these things.
A lot of noise if going to be heard about Roe v Wade but the case to
watch for the nominee's opinion on is Griswold v Connecticut. Griswold
is the case that rendered laws barring providing family planning
services, including contraceptives, unconstitutional and more
importantly is where the right to privacy was first expressed by a
SCOTUS majority opinion. A great deal of the social advances of the last
40 years was made possible by Griswold and a reversal of Griswold would
reverse many subsequent court decisions in one fell swoop.
Another important aspect of recent SCOTUS decisions that are in trouble
are those based on an expansive reading of the 14th amendments equal
protection clause. A narrow interpretation of equal protection would
indicate a willingness to revisit Lawrence v Texas among other cases.
A final aspect of the nominee's positions to pay close attention to is
his opinion of stare decisis. Basically it is whether the nominee
believes that previous precedent should be upheld with compelling
justification. At present Clarence Thomas is the lone SCOTUS justice who
rejects stare decisis but such a rejection is almost necessary for the
sorts of sweeping reversals many on the right are seeking.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Incident" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do therightthing! |
03 Jul 2005 11:09:17 AM |
|
|
A great deal of the social advances of the last 40 years
was made possible by Griswold and a reversal of Griswold would
reverse many subsequent court decisions in one fell swoop.
Griswold itself wouldn't be reversed. Griswold isn't the "problem"
(for the anti-privacy folks); the right to privacy is the problem. But
subsequent to Griswold, many cases have modified the right to privacy,
Roe v. Wade simply being the best known example. If Griswold were
merely a statute, it could simply be repealed, but the high court will
deal (if they choose to) with the broad legal concept of the right to
privacy in this case, which must be assessed as a whole.
Another important aspect of recent SCOTUS decisions that are in
trouble are those based on an expansive reading of the 14th amendments
equal protection clause. A narrow interpretation of equal protection would
indicate a willingness to revisit Lawrence v Texas among other cases.
Too bad the right can't be convinced to consistently treat the Equal
Protection Clause as expansively as they did in Bush v. Gore.
As for stare decisis, I have heard Rhenquist comment specifically that
it needs to be taken well into account even for issues of abortion. As
you note, Clarence Thomas disagrees. And I haven't seen anything out
of Scalia which makes me think he has much use for stare decisis when
it runs counter to his strict constructionism. Kennedy has reverence
for it, notably. What a huge victory it was, getting Kennedy instead
of Bork.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do therightthing! |
05 Jul 2005 11:40:44 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Incident <incident_at_twentymile@yahoo.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
As for stare decisis, I have heard Rhenquist comment specifically that
it needs to be taken well into account even for issues of abortion. As
you note, Clarence Thomas disagrees. And I haven't seen anything out
of Scalia which makes me think he has much use for stare decisis when
it runs counter to his strict constructionism.
I saw an interview a year or two ago in which Scalia lightly criticized
Thomas' ideas about stare decisis.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Estragon: People are bloody ignorant apes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do therightthing! |
03 Jul 2005 12:28:02 PM |
|
|
Incident wrote:
A great deal of the social advances of the last 40 years
was made possible by Griswold and a reversal of Griswold would
reverse many subsequent court decisions in one fell swoop.
Griswold itself wouldn't be reversed. Griswold isn't the "problem"
(for the anti-privacy folks); the right to privacy is the problem. But
subsequent to Griswold, many cases have modified the right to privacy,
Roe v. Wade simply being the best known example. If Griswold were
merely a statute, it could simply be repealed, but the high court will
deal (if they choose to) with the broad legal concept of the right to
privacy in this case, which must be assessed as a whole.
Another important aspect of recent SCOTUS decisions that are in
trouble are those based on an expansive reading of the 14th amendments
equal protection clause. A narrow interpretation of equal protection would
indicate a willingness to revisit Lawrence v Texas among other cases.
Too bad the right can't be convinced to consistently treat the Equal
Protection Clause as expansively as they did in Bush v. Gore.
As for stare decisis, I have heard Rhenquist comment specifically that
it needs to be taken well into account even for issues of abortion. As
you note, Clarence Thomas disagrees. And I haven't seen anything out
of Scalia which makes me think he has much use for stare decisis when
it runs counter to his strict constructionism. Kennedy has reverence
for it, notably. What a huge victory it was, getting Kennedy instead
of Bork.
Justice Scalia was interviewed by Ken Foskett for his biography of
Clarence Thomas. Someone else has my copy but Scalia makes a rather
pointed comment indicating he and Thomas disagree rather strongly on
stare Decisis.
Googling around I found a Washington Post article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31117-2004Oct13.html
which has the quote as this:
"if a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get
it right. I wouldn't do that."
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Incident" |
|
| Title: Re: (sort of OT) WingNutDaily columnist: Challenge to Bush: Do therightthing! |
03 Jul 2005 12:55:01 PM |
|
|
Thank you!
It is a rare day indeed when Scalia comments and I find myself somewhat
pleased. That said, it appears that Scalia's embrace of stare decisis
is for long-established (with the emphasis on "long) caselaw. Anything
of recent vintage (say, from the last century) appears to be fair game.
This is a notable departure from the concept of stare decisis as
embraced by, say, Rhenquist or Kennedy.
Further, as I mentioned before, Scalia's stance in the article you
state does stand in conflict with his strict constructionism. but
then, I've never heard of a strict constructionist who could manage to
be a consistent strict constructionist.
Thomas disagreeing with a unanimous 1798 decision that has never been
seriously challenged by the court? That is rather bizarre. I wonder
if Clarence wants to take on Marbury v. Madison?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
